top
East Bay
East Bay
Indybay
Indybay
Indybay
Regions
Indybay Regions North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area California United States International Americas Haiti Iraq Palestine Afghanistan
Topics
Newswire
Features
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature

Questions Remain After UC's Tree Removal at People's Park

by Molly Batchelder
This letter was sent on 3-27-15 to UC Capital Projects Project Manager, David Johnson, as well as Christine Shaff, Communications Director at UC Berkeley Real Estate, two individuals directed to handle public concerns regarding the recent tree removal at People's Park. Both emails bounced back. The letter addresses some of my concerns after reading the HortScience Arborist Report and reasons for recommended tree removals.
Dear David Johnson,

It was nice to speak with you today at the park. I have a few remaining concerns regarding the reasons why certain trees are being removed while other are allowed to remain.

On page 7 of the HortScience report, the 3 out of the 5 criteria for Suitability for Preservation allude to the ability of a tree to handle some sort of change in environment:

• “Tree health - Healthy, vigorous trees are better able to tolerate impacts such as root injury, changes in soil grade and moisture, and soil compaction than are non-vigorous trees.
• Species response - There is a wide variation in the response of individual species to changes in the environment.
• Tree age and longevity - Old trees, while having significant emotional and aesthetic appeal, have limited physiological capacity to adjust to an altered environment. Young trees are better able to generate new tissue and respond to change.”

I am wondering again if there is any planned development of the park, and if not, why was the ability of a tree to handle changes given such high consideration for preservation?

Under “Structural integrity” on the same page, the report reads “Trees with significant amounts of wood decay and other structural defects that cannot be corrected are likely to fail. Such trees should not be preserved in areas where damage to people or property is likely.”

However, there are a number of trees with a “3” and two with a “4” rating which are recommended for removal and are not hazardous. Some of these include #15, 16, 17, 18, 39, 58, 86, 87, 96, 100, 111, 118, 122. Other removals are recommended, yet no mitigation to improve health or structure were listed as alternative options to removal.

I understand the objective of “thinning” to improve grove health. However, as a number of these trees were historically planted during the initiation of the park, they hold a “significant emotional appeal” for many generations, as Jim Clark stated. It seems the University should offer more explicit reasons for the thinning. It is possible that the orderly look desired by the regents may not reflect the more natural setting desired by the people who utilize the park.

Finally, is the University planning for the eventual removal of all 77 trees recommended in the report?

With further clarification for the reason for each removal, perhaps we can alleviate some of the community concern.

Thank you for your time,

Molly Batchelder
WC ISA Certified Arborist #9613A


Add Your Comments
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!

Donate

$110.00 donated
in the past month

Get Involved

If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.

Publish

Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.

IMC Network